User talk:Morder/Archive
21:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)]] :For Archives go here Edithint-images I actually meant to bring this up to you a few days ago and forgot. I was thinking of changing to a general image message and moving it to , since it seems we get more uncited or unformatted images than personal ones. I thought I would get your input first since they were your idea. - Archduk3:talk 11:25, January 6, 2010 (UTC) :Or we can just make an that would apply to images and additions to articles. — Morder (talk) 11:36, January 6, 2010 (UTC) Sounds good to me, I'll add them to the message page. - Archduk3:talk 12:02, January 6, 2010 (UTC) Templates Makes it easier, Eh? My plan is to put an archive thing in there next. And a flag to hide the "start new discussion" thing. But for a starter... :) -- sulfur 20:37, January 6, 2010 (UTC) :Yeah, I don't want that "start new discussion" on mine. :) Really though I don't think it took much to add that header by hand. You do it once and it almost never changes. — Morder (talk) 20:39, January 6, 2010 (UTC) I've just had a few people ask how to do it over time, so I figured that it was easier to respond with a template rather than a chunk of code. -- sulfur 20:43, January 6, 2010 (UTC) :Ah, good idea then. :) Shame people don't seem to read it sometimes. — Morder (talk) 20:44, January 6, 2010 (UTC) Memory Alpha documentation category You need to add tags around the category to prevent the template itself from ending up in the doc cat. :P -- Renegade54 21:26, January 6, 2010 (UTC) :wtf...really? ok, gonna fix, thanks :) — Morder (talk) 21:43, January 6, 2010 (UTC) I would prefer you to be nicer All you had to do was say that you had trouble reading it, and would like me to change it. You did not have to act condescending about it. The policy itself says "Please." This indicates that it is a request. Granted, I didn't know the policy existed, but it's not my fault that no one else pointed it out TWO YEARS AGO. I don't have a problem with changing how I respond on my talk page if asked nicely. I just resent being told I have to. And I greatly resent somebody trying to force my hand by adding that not-quite-signature at the end of every comment. It doesn't even add the timestamp, so you didn't even add any information. The thing is, I was going to change the color anyways. The main reason I didn't want to sign is that my signature is purple, too, since (as of when I changed it) we were allowed to personalize our signatures. I chose this purple specifically because it was touted as readable on another site, yet different. (It's no darker than the followed link color.) My monitor is going bad, and it's still perfectly legible, if gauche with the new colorful theme. I'm now trying to figure out a way to personalize it so that it fits the color theme, and actually has something to do with my name. But I've had to take to fixing the color on the Wikia widgets and Home pages first. Until then, enjoy my purple signature. Commodore Sixty-Four(talk) 18:58, January 11, 2010 (UTC) Wait a second. It doesn't even make the request. User talk pages have their own section, and nothing about requiring signatures is there. If y'all want to enforce that, you might want to make it clearer that's what it means. Commodore Sixty-Four(talk) 19:01, January 11, 2010 (UTC) :It falls under the general "signing your posts" bit. Which applies to all pages. Don't selectively pick and choose. I've reworded it to try to make the point for you. Which, I'm sure, will still fail to be made. -- sulfur 19:53, January 11, 2010 (UTC) There you are again with the attitude. Stop it. Acting like a jerk is not allowed. Stop assuming bad faith. Follow policy yourself. Commodore Sixty-Four(talk) 12:00, January 13, 2010 (UTC) :C64: I'm not entirely sure what your problem is, especially when you don't give any examples. If you're referring to the comment above, take a close look at who signed it. Yes... me. I signed it. So if that comment's your beef, take it up with me. -- sulfur 12:07, January 13, 2010 (UTC) I responded on his page because you did. I took it you were the same person. Why else would you respond on his talk page? No matter. All that happened is that, on my talk page TWO YEARS AGO I had thought it was an okay idea not to sign my own talk page, but change the color of text. I'd pretty much even forgotten about it. I haven't been doing anything at all lately here except trying to fix the skin, because the Wikia widgets are very jarring on this dark background, and I think the user panel should match the other panels on all the other pages. (I don't remember them being messed up when you first created the news skin.) I noticed that one person had said "You need to sign, even on your own talk page." So I said, "I don't see why I need to sign on my own talk page." In other words, I wanted somebody to give me a reason. Morder did so, but he also went through and signed them all for me. And said, "If you don't want this to happen, then follow policy." I thought this was quite rude. I was steaming mad, but I that the above was a very civil response. I come back, and I see a comment that says, "I clarified the statement. But that probably won't be enough for you. Don't pick and choose." How is that not supposed to be rude? Why assume that I intentionally misread it and will continue to do so, rather than assume that I didn't get it, and that I would appreciate your attempt to make it clearer? I tried to fix it a bit too. I'd appreciate your comments. I realized after the fact that my comment was probably ruder than yours, and was going to fix it. But, since you've already responded, I am leaving it as is. I'm going through a pretty hard time right now (foreclosure on my house, bankruptsy, panic disorder, depression), and I'm probably a bit too on edge. That's why I had been staying away from anything remotely controversial. And I feel like I had a controversy thrown on my lap. I don't want to cause problems, but I don't want to let people be rude to me. It doesn't help that I'm now scared that you guys won't even look at my proposal to make the skin look a wee bit better. I've spent way too long on it for it to be rejected because I didn't know about a policy two years ago. But, if you feel it's okay to be rude to me, then I feel I must have done something absolutely horrible. I didn't mean any harm. Commodore Sixty-Four(talk) 12:34, January 13, 2010 (UTC) And now I see the reason I should hold off before I respond. While it still seems you were accusing me of "picking and choosing," I can read the other comment as you being self-effacing. You could be saying "I tried to make it clearer, but I don't know if I did a good job. What do you think?" My response thus should have been. "I like your change. However, I wasn't picking and choosing. The sections are separated, and do not clearly refer back to each other. I'll try to fix it to show you what I mean." Anyways, the main problem that I don't know how to fix is to explain WHY it's important to sign your own talk page, rather than try to be stylish and use something else. Commodore Sixty-Four(talk) 13:08, January 13, 2010 (UTC) ::Anyone can reply to a general statement/question on my talk page unless it specifically requires a comment from me. Your statements had no such requirement so anyone can reply. As for signing your own talk page...it's clear you don't remember all the time as evidenced by this talk page's history which required you to sign it after you already posted. It would probably help you to sign all talk pages so you won't forget. I never said anything rude, I simply stated you should follow policy. You took it as being rude and that was up to you to do so, I didn't call you a jerk I just said "follow policy". You're the one who started calling people names. (I can only assume you did as a result of your above mentioned problems.) Now...you said you wish you didn't have controversy thrown in your lap but if you had at least listened to what people have said to you then you wouldn't have had any controversy. People are here to offer you advice and you just seem to have ignored it rather than considering it. Anyway, I consider this discussion over. If you still have a problem with "rudeness" take it up on the other person's talk page and not mine. — Morder (talk) 17:17, January 13, 2010 (UTC) Let's take this one part at a time. # I had a "beef" with your actions. Therefore, I only expected an answer from you. When I saw the response from Sulfur, I thought it was you. The names are quite similar. # I don't like that you tried to infer how my mind works. The reason I forget to sign has nothing to do with my talk page, and everything to do with the fact that I haven't been here in a long time. Still, thanks for finally answering my question--"Why should I sign my own talk page?" "Because it helps you stay in the habit of doing so elsewhere." Had you answered me thusly, I wouldn't have had a problem. # You didn't "simply state that I should follow policy." Had you done so, I wouldn't have been upset. You signed all my unsigned comments for me. You even said, "If you follow policy, this sort of thing won't happen." How am I not supposed to take that as a threat, even if a fairly innocuous one? That is what I had a problem with. #I don't know where you got the idea that I thought you called me a jerk. I simply believe that threatening someone, even with something as innocuous as signing their posts, is improper behavior. #I'm not calling any names. I was rude, but I admitted such, and said I only posted without thinking. I think what it throwing you is my use of the word "jerkish". But this is describing behavior, not you as a person. Heck, I saw some of the comments you made on some other pages. You're a pretty nice guy. That's why the way you responded hurt so much. I can't blame it on you having a different style of talking that just gets on my nerves, like a certain admin here. (See my talk page. I was trying to help a poster get over feeling that the guy was rude, and I used some poor verbiage that was insulting. And the thing is, I don't even remember who either person was.) #The problem I have with both you and the admin that responded is that you are not assuming good faith. Since you both made the same mistake, have similar names, and responded to something I thought was clearly intended for you, I got y'all mixed up. But, just sticking with you: you said I am "not following advice." It can't be that I didn't understand it. It can't be that nobody told me it was a policy I was violating, and not just some stodgy custom. No, it had to be because I willfully decided not to listen to people who were trying to help me. Can you see why that would rub someone the wrong way? #Even if you don't, check the little datestamp. The advice I got was two years ago. During that time, if I made any edit to any talk page, I signed it. I didn't even know anyone had said anything since my last response. Which is why I responded so late. It wasn't an act of defiance, it was a (perhaps poorly formed) request for information. #Finally, I'm going to take the first step. I'm sorry. From your response, you obviously weren't trying to be rude. You were trying to help. And I appreciate that. I just wish you would have given me a chance to fix my own problem, instead of doing it for me. They're my comments. I'' should be the one to sign them. Now, since you've done that, I can't even sign it myself, since that would involve deleting your "not-quite signatures," and, as they are comments, they are sacrosanct. The best I could do (and still follow policy) was sign your comments with the same template, and then sign that. #And I'm sorry I didn't just say what I said in item 8. I'm sure that would have went over better. I hope you can forgive me for being so--well--rude. Cheers. -- 19:59, January 13, 2010 (UTC) :Like I said, It's done and over...I'm not going to read a huge post by you again, just leave it be — Morder (talk) 20:02, January 13, 2010 (UTC) Of Stones and Gol No problem. ;-) From what I gather, the "Gol" reference originated in the TMP novelization.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 01:01, January 14, 2010 (UTC) :Cool. Interesting too as I actually checked the script for a reference of the name but didn't see one. I assume the city in ENT was named after the Stone, as well...but we'd need to find evidence... — Morder (talk) 01:03, January 14, 2010 (UTC) POV Thank you for bringing the point of view page to my attention. The consistent use of past tense was confusing, considering it's supposed to be kept in-universe. I appreciate the correction. Cephalopod 09:11, January 16, 2010 (UTC) Merges Regarding Vulcan freighter merge: "''If, after '''seven to ten days', there's consensus, perform the merge by copying all information from that page to the new one. Note the source page of the new information in the edit summary, and leave a note about the performed merge on the talk page." You barely gave it 24 hours.... --Alan 17:36, January 29, 2010 (UTC) :I did it as a result of another user performing the merge manually. I should have read the talk page about it but assumed the merge was appropriate given someone was attempting to do it. I'll be more careful in the future. — Morder (talk) 17:41, January 29, 2010 (UTC) Doctor Who Morder, I took a talk page off track, and I'd like to move the text to my talk page, as its a disruption of my own personal making. Is this feasible? OC keeps reverting, edit warring. I think this will totally derail any discussion of the actual Dr Who issue, so I wanted another opinion. - Captain MKB 05:39, February 4, 2010 (UTC) :The discussion of the Doctor Who article is continuing fine in the new section you created, where you and I are even in agreement. If you don't like that other comments are on the page, you shouldn't have made them to begin with. I will not have my comments attached to another conversation that they had nothing to do with, be characterized as me being petty and restarting a days old argument, just because you don't like clutter. Sleep in the bed '''you' made. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:43, February 4, 2010 (UTC) ::Let's just end the discussion - Leave the Doctor Who talk page the way it is (with full text) and start a new heading. — Morder (talk) 05:46, February 4, 2010 (UTC) ::Amazing that OC cannot accept that I'm embarrassed no matter how this ends up. I've been put in my place. I yield. I've apologized, I've tried to redirect the discussion I disrupted. But it doesn't matter, OC is out for blood. My mistakes must be punished. However he sees fit, he is the decider. -- Captain MKB 05:48, February 4, 2010 (UTC) :Yeah, totally out for blood, that's why I let you get the last word on the IP Unblocking argument, letting you get away with disparaging remarks at my expense. So out for blood that I just don't want my actions misrepresented by you to seem as if I''' restarted the IP argument when '''you did. So terribly out for blood. I'm willing to compromise, if you want to move everything after this edit to your talk page, fine. It leaves comments of mine that I made regarding the Doctor Who page on the Doctor Who page, and it correctly would depict the restarting of the IP debate being your action, not mine. If that is your solution to "uncluttering it," I'd be willing to go for it. That said, another administrator has suggested just leaving the whole thing. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:52, February 4, 2010 (UTC) ::Ok, now that this is all said - let's end it. If you two wish to continue please do so on your talk pages and not on Doctor Who or my talk page. The best thing to do now would just for both to quit now because it will never end until someone just stops. — Morder (talk) 05:55, February 4, 2010 (UTC) Template documentation Should not include "includeonly" tags to hide the documentation. Otherwise, there's no real point in categorizing those things into the documentation category. -- sulfur 14:53, February 8, 2010 (UTC) :I gotcha, Someone else, thomashl or cid or someone mentioned I should do that and I really didn't give much thought to it as whoever it was claimed it solved a problem...oh well, I guess I'll go and fix them later today or something :) — Morder (talk) 20:43, February 8, 2010 (UTC) ::If it was me, it was probably regarding the categorization of the template itself. If that is included via its doc page, the category link should in fact be "includeonly", to avoid categorizing the doc page, too. The rest of the doc page could of course be visible. ;) -- Cid Highwind 21:22, February 8, 2010 (UTC) :so if I understand this correctly...which I think I don't...It should be something like this this is the documentation Category:Documentation :This would allow documentation categorization on the doc page while note including it on the template, right? — Morder (talk) 22:06, February 8, 2010 (UTC) ::Yeah, I confused myself a little... ;) Anyway, I think it should be like this: this is the documentation Category:Documentation Category:Template ::That way, all category links are located on the /doc page (means they don't take away from the overall template size limit on articles), but only the doc page is categorized as "Documentation", and only the template page is categorized as "Template". -- Cid Highwind 22:35, February 8, 2010 (UTC) The only problem with the second, is that it doesn't actually show up in the category, due to the way the software handles things. It's bloody annoying. -- sulfur 22:40, February 8, 2010 (UTC) :That's an interesting thought and it makes sense that way. Something else for me to look forward to doing :) — Morder (talk) 22:41, February 8, 2010 (UTC) :Bah, that sucks (looks like an edit conflict since i didn't see your msg sulfur but it still went through...) — Morder (talk) 22:42, February 8, 2010 (UTC) Cardassian Guard While the discussion is in progress, it is safer if the article remains "Cardassian military", as an emergency measure in order to prevent likely myth-spreading, simply because the evidence for my title is so much better at this point. If someone should come up with proof that Cardassian Guard is the formal name of the Cardassian military, the article can easily be moved back, but I just discovered that the underlying evidence is dangerously weak - the article referenced "Emissary" as the only source, and it turned out to be an ambiguous line of dialogue. This is not fanfic or a licensed publication - it's an encyclopedia which must merely follow the lead of the canon, never speculate, assume or expand upon it creatively. – NotOfTheBody 07:55, February 18, 2010 (UTC) :There's no such "emergency" that requires the page be moved right now. If your evidence is satisfactory then it can be moved after a discussion can be had. — Morder (talk) 07:59, February 18, 2010 (UTC) Welcome? Dude, I don't even use this. 01:16, February 19, 2010 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for the response on my question in the ''Star Trek'' talk page, by any chance (and the a reason why I moved the discussion here), how did you see the script? --Terran Officer 21:50, April 20, 2010 (UTC) :The internet... :) That's why I'm not sure about the accuracy. My copy is also an old version, as well as a lot of the scenes have been rewritten. (Strangely too there's a lot of cursing comments by the writers) I'm sure a search for "star trek script" will result in the same copy I have... — Morder (talk) 22:12, April 20, 2010 (UTC) Galleries I noticed you added some personal CSS to try and center the "new and improved" galleries, and was wondering if it had any effect as similar code does nothing for the monaco skin. - 02:45, May 5, 2010 (UTC) :Yeah, it puts a border around each thumbnail and a border around the entire gallery and also centers it. I was just tossing some ideas there to see what would happen because I thought it was being discussed. I'll check the monaco skin and let you know. — Morder (talk) 19:45, May 5, 2010 (UTC) :My god monaco is ugly. Anyway, it does the exact same thing in monaco as it does in monobook. I can't remember what the old gallery looked like so I didn't work on it anymore. If someone has a screenshot I'll be able to reproduce it - possibly. — Morder (talk) 19:48, May 5, 2010 (UTC) You're a frakin genius. I don't know if the visible border is necessary, see Constitution class model, but having them centered again is worth it. :) - 19:57, May 5, 2010 (UTC) :Well, I was trying to just make it similar to what it used to look like - but I just forgot how it looked. :) — Morder (talk) 20:39, May 5, 2010 (UTC) And you just made something possible that a few people across wikia have been trying to do since it changed, though not very hard. I'm for putting this in the site's css now if everyone is cool with it. Personally I would tweak the border color, but that's small potatoes. - 22:33, May 5, 2010 (UTC) :Yes, you should change the border to match the current borders - I only did it as a test. — Morder (talk) 05:33, May 6, 2010 (UTC) Thanks Didn't see that the talk page box was checked. Thanks for fixing that quickly.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 04:17, June 14, 2010 (UTC) :No problemo. :) — Morder (talk) 04:19, June 14, 2010 (UTC) Space shuttle missions The deletion discussion kinda stalled out after you said you had a link to a page saying these patches were used on the set. Do you still have it? - 18:33, July 17, 2010 (UTC) :http://johneaves.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/602-club/ It was a comment by Eaves that says he believes they were originals. — Morder (talk) 05:47, July 18, 2010 (UTC) Thanks. :) Are you still for deletion? - 07:29, July 18, 2010 (UTC) :In it's current state, yes. If we're going to have any real info it should just be noted on the background information for the 602 Club. — Morder (talk) 16:50, July 18, 2010 (UTC) In that case, I'll move the info later today/tomorrow. After that, I can delete the page noting that the info was moved. ;) - 17:00, July 18, 2010 (UTC) I put up a suggestion at the deletion discussion, to see how that pans out before creating a bunch of pages. Also, this page is a real help with IDing what was actually on screen. - 10:07, July 19, 2010 (UTC) Question Hello. I was trying to finish the article for plasma injector and I was wondering if you have seen or own , since this is the last episode that is needed to finish it and I don't own it, nor have I seen it for years. Thanks. --Delta2373 04:25, August 21, 2010 (UTC) :What specifically are you looking for? — Morder (talk) 06:20, August 21, 2010 (UTC) A reference to plasma injectors in said episode. --Delta2373 08:31, August 21, 2010 (UTC) :I don't see a reference off hand. Are you sure it was mentioned in the episode? — Morder (talk) 16:07, August 21, 2010 (UTC) On the discussion page for missing references, there is a reference to it in the episode, according to Gvsualan. --Delta2373 20:28, August 21, 2010 (UTC) :I'd venture a guess and just say it was a mistake - unless it was visual evidence and not spoken. Post a message on the talk page and see if anyone else might know. — Morder (talk) 22:16, August 21, 2010 (UTC)